I would assume in the text of the document. This paragraph is simply an enumeration of Burger's Axiom: For every SHOULD, there must be an UNLESS, otherwise the SHOULD is a MAY. On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > It would help me if you explained the diffs and the *reasons* for the > proposed changes. > > E.g, the new text says: > > This term means that the feature or behavior is a limited requirement > of the specification, so that an implementation has a conditional > obligation to implement the feature or to behave as defined, unless > there is a strong, explicitly described reason not to do so in > particular circumstances. Those who implement the specification or > deploy conformant technologies need to understand and carefully weigh > the full implications of violating the requirement before doing so. > The term "RECOMMENDED" is equivalent to "SHOULD". > > The wording "unless there is a strong explicitly described reason not > to do so in particular circumstances" is new wording and my first > reaction is it's not helpful. I.e., "explicitely described by who?" > Explicitely specified in the text? If so, that seems unworkable in > practice. > > What problem is this bis document intended to fix? > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf